The State News is published by the students of Michigan State University every other Tuesday during the academic year. News is updated seven days a week at statenews.com.
State News Inc. is a private, nonprofit corporation. Its current 990 tax form is available for review upon request at 435 E. Grand River Ave. during business hours.
One copy of this newspaper is available free of charge to any member of the MSU community. Additional copies available at The State News office for a fee.
REPORT: MSU STUDENTS BECOMING MORE ACCEPTING OF VIOLENCE TO SUPPRESS CAMPUS SPEECH
By Emilio Perez Ibarguen eibarguen@statenews.com
A growing share of Michigan State University students say that using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases.
The percentage of students who agree with that notion has more than doubled in recent years, from 18% in 2022 to 38% this year, according to a recent report from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, a non-profit that tracks free speech rights on college campuses.
The group surveyed 311 MSU students who were recruited through web advertising, email campaigns and university partnerships from Jan. 3 through June 5, 2025. Though FIRE says that it tries to ensure the results are representative of an institution, it admits that surveys can be subject to
error or bias due to question wording, context and the order of questions.
“However one feels about his activism, this is not how we should comport ourselves in the United States.”
Michelle Deutchman
Executive Director of the UC National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement
Also growing are the shares of students nationwide who at least rarely would accept shouting down a speaker, preventing them from
speaking on campus, blocking other students from attending a campus event and using violence to stop a campus event.
The data comes at a fraught time for campus free speech — student protests over the Israel-Hamas War have invited intense scrutiny from the current federal administration, while institutions like MSU have committed to remaining neutral on global issues. Meanwhile, political violence is on the rise in America, with experts noting the increasing frequency and severity of violent acts.
Those two forces collided on Wednesday, when conservative activist and Trump ally Charlie Kirk, whose myriad of recorded debates on college campuses propelled him to political fame, was assassinated at an event at Utah Valley University. Kirk visited MSU in April, intellectually sparring with students in his signature debate
format while protestors looked on.
“However one feels about his activism, this is not how we should comport ourselves in the United States,” said Michelle Deutchman, the executive director of the UC National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement.
MSU in recent years has been the site of several contentious student protests, demonstrations and political events, the vast majority of which have not been obstructed or faced violence.
In April 2024, an MSU student was arrested after flipping over a table and punching two students who were demonstrating inside Brody Hall. The demonstration, set up by conservative student organization Young Americans for Freedom, featured a transgender flag and literature stating that “Men cannot be women.”
University Spokesperson Amber McCann said in a statement to The State News that freedom of expression is a “critical component” for the attainment of the institution’s goals of fostering an inclusive environment that supports students’ education and innovation.
“That is why MSU makes available online resources in support of freedom of speech, and has adopted guidance like institutional restraint in support of the university’s commitment to serve as a forum for civil and respectful debates, not proponents within them,” McCann said. The right to express ideas and opinions without fear of government reprisal is firmly established in the bedrock of American democracy. But, Deutchman said that the
actual value and benefit of protecting speech, including ideas that most people may find detestable, has eluded some people. Universities could play a part in educating students about the value of those protections, she said. But universities are only one institution, Deutchman said, and any concentrated effort to combat political violence and an openness to it would need to involve various public and private parts of society — be they individual families or news organizations.
“Especially in a moment where political polarization rules the day — and we’re already starting to see it — this is becoming an issue
about politics,” Deutchman said of Kirk’s assassination. “When really what it should be about is a violation of how we should be living in American society.”
Other findings from the FIRE report include that over a third of MSU students said they self-censor on campus at least once or twice a month. The university ranked 60th out of 257 American universities and was the third-highestranked institution in the Big Ten conference.
At the same time, FIRE gave the university an F grade for students’ perceptions of political tolerance on campus and for their perception of MSU’s administration’s support for free speech.
Deutchman said students could potentially benefit from classes dedicated to teaching how to have dialogues with people who hold opposing views and come from different backgrounds. Professors establishing no-video or audio recording policies in class could also help students feel safer experimenting with novel ideas without fear of social repercussions. Without developing the “muscles” of open and respectful dialogue, she said, “I don’t know how we can expect that our future leaders and citizens are going to be able to do that, both in university and then when they get out into the world.”
Michigan State University’s Hannah Administration Building houses the administration of MSU in East Lansing, Michigan, pictured on May 23, 2025. State News file photo.
HOW A LECTURE ON ISRAELI THEATER
Those passing by the Wells Hall conference room could have glimpsed an impassioned speaker holding his phone up to his ear, miming a conversation with an imagined scene partner in the play he was reading.
The actor and scholar Roy Horovitz was at Michigan State University, where he had been invited to give a lecture on Israeli theater. The students attending the event — some taking notes, others watching blankly — were nearly outnumbered by the faculty from departments that planned the event.
For the modest few who gathered that Friday afternoon, the talk was about educating listeners on the niche artistic realm. For the Associated Students of Michigan State University, it meant something vastly different.
A student government resolution, hastily passed the night before, described the event as “highlighting the work of Israeli and IDF personnel.”
Horovitz, like all Jewish Israelis, had been required to briefly serve in the nation’s defense force after he turned 18. So, the university was, in effect, hosting “individuals affiliated with ICJcondemned military bodies that are found to be committing genocide,” according to ASMSU’s resolution. It ran the risk of retraumatizing Palestinian and Arab students, it argued.
A petition circulated amongst students, demanding the event be canceled, asserted that Horovitz’s visit was “particularly distressing for MSU, a campus still healing from its own trauma, and one which stands on Indigenous land.”
The event’s most vocal critics saw the mere presence of an Israeli on campus as a threat to the principles MSU upholds. But some in MSU’s Jewish community view that framing as discriminatory by nature. They say it’s more nuanced, and that writing off an entire group of people due to the actions of their government is simply antisemitic.
Such are the zero-sum politics on MSU’s campus today. Intense polarization, entrenched moralism and eagle-eyed perceptions of bias reign supreme, even as the university’s president has looked to lower the temperature, making a series of lofty pronouncements about “civil discourse.”
AN ‘URGENT’ CONCERN
A few days before the event, Professor Yael
Serling Institute for Jewish Studies and Modern Israel, which hosted the event with MSU’s Department of Theatre.
The inundation was itself curious, she said — but more so was the fact that few of the emails were from MSU addresses, instead coming from people affiliated with Wayne State University and University of Michigan. Furthermore, the language used in most of the emails was nearly uniform.
Her LinkedIn account was also seeing unusual levels of activity, Aronoff said. She got a notification that 100 people had viewed her profile.
Those messages directly to Aronoff were seemingly just one piece of a broader campaign. She said the Department of Theatre chair, the dean and the provost were receiving similar messages.
The State News obtained an email petition circulating among student groups in the days leading up to the event. The person who shared it did so on the condition that they not be identified. The petition included blanks so that student groups could sign on, and called on MSU to cancel the event. It listed email addresses for Aronoff and the other administrators, and instructed people to send them copies of the petition. It was marked “urgent.”
It said MSU’s hosting of a cultural event featuring a former member of the IDF, without acknowledging “Palestinian suffering,” was an affront to the university’s values. And, it “risks normalizing and sanitizing a state apparatus currently under global scrutiny for grave human rights violations.” It also argued that if the university wants to engage with Israeli or Palestinian culture, the programing must be “balanced”.
That claim is particularly frustrating for Aronoff: the Serling Institute has invited several Palestinian speakers to MSU in recent years. In fact, Aronoff said the department has an event scheduled for late October, which will feature both an Israeli and Palestinian speaker.
“But it also, of course, doesn’t mean that every single one of our events is going to feature Palestinians,” she said.
It’s unclear where the email template originated. The State News reached out to several student organizations that have been vocal about
Aronoff got another email. This time, it was a member of ASMSU, writing to say the student government had voted the night before to advocate for the cancellation of Horovitz’ lecture, and asking her to respond. She didn’t.
“Not because I don’t care,” Aronoff said. “It’s just, I think it’s hard to have a dialogue over email.”
ASMSU’s bill echoed many of the concerns of the petition. It claimed that the event highlights “the work of Israeli and IDF personnel.” Doing so “normalizes relations with violent states and erases Palestinian and Arab suffering”.
Aronoff finds the bill — particularly its focus on Horovitz’ IDF service — concerning. Given that Israeli law requires the majority of its citizens to serve in the military, the bill’s logic would suggest that, to ASMSU, “most Israelis aren’t allowed to speak at MSU,” she said. That constitutes “discrimination based on national origin.”
It also has grave implications for academic freedom, Aronoff said. She finds ASMSU’s bill to be antithetical to the concept — that scholars should be able to express their ideas freely, and campus discourse should be tolerant of a wide range of views.
BILL’S INCEPTION
Aesha Zakaria found out about Horovitz’s visit a day earlier. The psychology senior, who represents the Asian Pacific American Student Organization on ASMSU, was shocked: the event goes against years of advocacy from not just Muslim and Arab students, but ASMSU itself, she told The State News. It was evidence of MSU’s continuous ties to Israel, she said — a country that she noted has been accused of war crimes by the International Court of Justice.
“That’s why I felt really compelled to write a bill and advocate for the cancellation of the event,” Zakaria said.
After studying for a quiz, Zakaria started researching Horovitz and drafting her bill. It was tricky: the playwright has a minimal social media presence and most of his public appearances and media interviews are just about theater, she said.
Then she found a stray line in a comparative Jewish literature anthology that includes a memoir written by Horovitz. In it, he details his rise as a scholar and actor, saying, “To fulfill
For Zakaria, it was a smoking gun: “That makes him complicit in the genocide that has been happening in Palestine for the past several decades,” she said. While she acknowledges that conscription is mandatory, “that does not excuse complicity in the crimes that have taken place in Palestine.”
With that, she had her bill. The problem was timing. The event, which she hoped to see canceled, was only a day away. There was an ASMSU meeting in a few hours, but the agenda was already set.
Still, Zakaria sent the bill around to other representatives, she said. Some promptly signed on as co-sponsors. And, a common ASMSU practice would allow them to bypass the typical committee approval process: they could suspend the rules of procedure to force a vote on the bill that night.
‘A DANGEROUS MESSAGE’
Jewish Student Union representative Vladimir Shpunt found out about the bill when it was sent in the ASMSU group-chat, just an hour before the meeting. He panicked as other representatives said they planned to introduce it with a suspension of the rules.
“I had about 20 minutes to write a speech, including research, because I had to drive there,” Shpunt said.
Shpunt was the only one in ASMSU’s general assembly to vote against adding the bill to the agenda. A motion to have a recess to discuss the bill further also failed. Instead, the room moved into formal discussion with Zakaria’s opening statement.
She reiterated the framing that had burgeoned in the days prior: The event would harm Arab and Muslim students by bringing someone to campus that served in a military participating in violence against Palestinian people. Zakaria said the goal was not to remove Jewish spaces from campus.
“I believe that this event does not necessarily serve Jewish spaces as much as it just naturalizes and normalizes Israel’s presence and ties to this campus,” she said. The bill’s seconder, James Madison College representative Abe Jaafar, spoke next, echoing Zakaria’s argument.
Then Shpunt, the JSU representative, got to speak. He said the bill violated ASMSU’s
commitment to civil discourse by singling out a Jewish and Israeli actor set to speak about his culture through art, rather than discuss policies or ideology.
Shpunt compared the event to a recent Palestinian art exhibit present at the Eli-Broad Art Museum. When that display opened, Jewish students on campus did not protest or condemn the display, he said.
“Yet today you are asked to condemn a Jewish Voice before he even speaks,” Shpunt said. “That is blatant antisemitism.”
A representative then moved to override any remaining discussion and simply vote on the bill. That vote failed, and they continued to debate.
“Elevating such an individual sends a dangerous message,” said Muslim Students Association representative Sanaa Bashar of Horovitz. “This is not someone students should ever be asked to view as a role model, or learn from.”
After discussion concluded, they finally voted on the bill. It passed with fourteen in favor, five abstaining, and only Shpunt voting against.
JSU Vice President of External Affairs Tyler Pohl said the bill sets a dangerous precedent for student government. Rather than just advocating for something students believed in, it minimized his community’s presence on campus.
“It’s become this political theater, almost, in a way,” Pohl said. “They bring up bills to make comments that don’t necessarily directly affect the
undergraduate student population.”
Reflecting on the bill, Zakaria said it wasn’t necessarily about Horovitz himself. Rather, it aimed to push back on connections between MSU and Israel. The goal, she said, wasn’t to make Israelis feel unwelcome on campus.
ASMSU President Kathryn Harding declined multiple requests for interviews over the course of a week, saying she was too busy. She also declined to answer a list of written questions. In a written statement to The State News, she said that her position as president is that of an unbiased mediator, and that it isn’t her place to influence individual bills.
This bill aimed to address the “perceived tone-deaf nature to Arab, Palestinian, and allied students with MSU hosting this particular event,” she wrote. She noted that ASMSU condemns antisemitism, citing a bill passed earlier this year addressing its relevance on campus.
University spokesperson Emily Guerrant told The State News that MSU doesn’t take a position on bills passed by the student government, but is working with the groups involved and impacted by this legislation.
“We affirm the importance of free expression, civil discourse, and the exchange of diverse perspectives, while also emphasizing that respect and care for one another must guide how those conversations take place,” Guerrant said in a statement.
The campus debate comes as the Trump administration watches universities closely for conduct it deems antisemitic. It has justified slashing millions of dollars in research funding to universities for their perceived blase attitude toward discrimination against Jews on campus. Some institutions, in turn, have vowed to address those concerns as a condition of their federal funding being restored. MSU has, thus far, stayed above the fray.
‘CANCEL ME?’
In the days leading up the event, Hebrew Studies Professor Yore Kedem was asking his students if they planned to attend. Some said they didn’t plan to — but not because of a lack of interest. They feared the event would be met with protest or even violence, he said.
Kedem was disappointed by the controversy. He lived in Israel for 26 years, and completed his mandatory conscription. Kedem said he’s responsible for his own deeds, not the military’s.
To him, protesting a group of people solely because of the actions of their government, one that he himself disagrees with, is “preposterous.”
“I didn’t choose to be born Israeli,” he said. “I am Israeli, and a very significant part of my identity is Israeli. But is that a good enough reason to cancel me? If that’s a good enough reason to cancel me, then there’s no other way
to call it but antisemitism and racism.”
The actual event proceeded uninterrupted. Horovitz was introduced, then gave a lecture on Israeli theater. He talked about history, how the theater scene evolved, and some Israeli playwrights he admired.
Briefly, he did address the conflict.
“We navigate through an ongoing, harrowing, situation,” he told the small crowd. “War — terrible government from our side as well. I won’t hide my opinions. We are really facing some harsh reality, both us and our neighbors.”
He added that this lecture, in part, would show that Israeli theater and its artists have their own voices, separate from their leaders. One play Horovitz read, “How to Remain a Humanist after a Massacre in 17 Steps”, was written days after the October 7, 2023 attack and centers on how to, as Horovitz puts it, “maintain humanism” after a tragedy and stick to compassion.
After the event, The State News asked Horovitz about the surrounding controversy. He said he came to MSU only as an artist; if anything, he aimed to bridge gaps between people through dialogue.
“People aren’t representatives of their governments,” he said. “Coming here, I would have taken everybody as a Trumpist. I know it’s not the situation.”
Photo Illustration by Tate Rudisill.
‘PROFESSOR WATCHLISTS’ ARE A THORN AND THREAT FOR SOME FACULTY
DATABASES DEDICATED TO DOCUMENTING ‘RADICAL’ FACULTY ARE NOTHING NEW, BUT PROFESSORS ARE ESPECIALLY ON EDGE AMID A BROADER ASSAULT ON HIGHER EDUCATION
By Emilio Perez Ibarguen eibarguen@statenews.com
When Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA launched its Professor Watchlist in 2016, Kirk characterized it as a net good, shining a light on ideological biases in universities while helping conservative students pick their classes smartly.
Nearly a decade later, the site and its contemporaries continue to worry professors at Michigan State University who say the lists attract threats and harassment to the faculty on them, and create a chilling effect on open classroom discussion.
“People have said the professor is the enemy … Now we’re constructed as that, and it’s shaping our work in ways that are detrimental to us but also our students, even the students who might oppose us ideologically,” said a professor who teaches in MSU’s
James Madison College and requested anonymity to speak freely.
As the administration of President Donald Trump lays siege to universities, the lists provide ostensible evidence for one of its most effective arguments — the notion that professors are indoctrinating students in leftist ideology on the taxpayer’s dime.
That idea, alongside claims that college administrators have turned a blind eye to antisemitism on campus and engaged in unpopular affirmative action, forms the bedrock of the conservative movement’s mistrust of higher education. It serves to legitimate the administration’s embargoes of federal research money, investigations into universities and restrictive executive orders.
Though the Trump administration’s efforts have succeeded in toppling the leaders of high-profile institutions, the animating force fueling the public’s
Photo Illustration by Tate Rudisill.
suspicion of higher education remains rank-andfile faculty. Few practices exemplify this distrust as saliently as the watchlists, created to catalog professors who participate in controversial research, are accused of teaching with a partisan slant or engage in political advocacy.
The Professor Watchlist, arguably the most infamous of these databases, purports to list academics who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom. Nine former and current MSU professors are listed on the site, with most being involved in research or teaching around racial justice, LGBTQ+ rights or reproductive health.
Another organization, the Canary Mission, lists professors and students who it says “promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews.” Its database includes white nationalists as well as student activists and professors who are critical of Israel, including one MSU professor.
Beyond those searchable databases, a vast ecosystem of social media pages disseminates accounts of “radical” behavior by professors based on published news stories, as well as recordings leaked by students or tips from the public. Two MSU professors faced backlash for their public reactions to the 2024 election — one canceled class to “grieve” the results, while another called Trump supporters “naïve” in an email to students — which were circulated online.
In a statement to The State News, Faculty
Senate Chair and chemistry professor Angela Wilson acknowledged that concerns about professors blurring the lines between academic inquiry and personal advocacy occasionally arise, as they do in any profession.
“...one can’t defend themselves when there’s no process involved...”
Anonymous MSU Professor
Faculty watchlists, however, bypass the established structures for addressing such concerns, Wilson said. They “can misrepresent context and contribute to a climate of intimidation that can suppress open dialogue, even around noncontroversial or academically standard topics for both faculty and students, impacting the richness of classroom learning.”
Even in STEM fields, some faculty have expressed growing concern that well-intentioned remarks in the classroom could be taken out of context and mischaracterized, Wilson added.
Two MSU professors interviewed by The State News for this story requested to remain anonymous. They observed that their colleagues have been concerned and aware of watchlist-style websites for some time, though both said they
haven’t changed their curriculum or censored in the classroom themselves because of the lists.
“I’m really clear in my syllabus that just because I assign something, it doesn’t mean I agree with everything in it,” said the James Madison College professor. “I don’t think that that’s how education works.”
Roughly 47% of faculty members nationwide reported at least occasionally worrying that students, intentionally or unintentionally, might share their ideas or statements out of context, according to a 2024 study by the American Association of Colleges and Universities. 52% of faculty members reported believing their colleagues are more worried about being the subject of online targeted harassment now compared to seven years ago.
Ashley Finley, the vice president of research for the association and one of the lead researchers on the study, said the combination of faculty watchlists, state legislation restricting curricula and worries of class material being shared online contributes to an “invisible battery drain” on faculty members.
They must be “consistently mindful, consistently aware, consistently cautious about who they’re interacting with, what they’re talking about, what’s the environment they’re in,” Finley said.
The other MSU professor said being cognizant of students’ sensibilities to avoid offending
them is not necessarily a bad thing; the threats the watchlists can cause, though, are “quite problematic.” They also criticized the watchlist organizations for not giving faculty any way to contest their placement on the list but doubted such an appeal would be taken seriously:
“Even if there was a clear definition” for what merits being on the list, “one can’t defend themselves when there’s no process involved,” the professor said, adding, “This is on people’s whims.”
Organizations like Turning Point USA or the Young America’s Foundation solicit tips from students, while class materials that get posted online also tend to originate from students. Despite that, the James Madison College professor said the trust between faculty and students hasn’t been eroded.
Students reporting faculty isn’t the root issue, the professor said. Rather, it’s a symptom of a broader cultural acrimony toward academia that paved the way for faculty watchlists and the federal government’s pronounced concern for what happens inside campus classrooms.
“Our relationships to our students are really important,” the professor said. “And our relationships to students who disagree with us and may be troubled by the things we teach, or who find our particular discourse problematic — our relationship with those students is really important.”
OPINION: CHARLIE KIRK’S DEATH IS A THREAT TO CAMPUS DISCOURSE
By Jack O’Brien jobrien@statenews.com
On April 25, 2024, I was sitting through James Madison College’s annual Jack Paynter lecture. During the post-lecture questionnaire, the older man next to me raised his hand, and asked the speaker a question about our political state that sent a nervous chuckle through the room: “Is assassination a legitimate solution?”
A year and a half ago, this question felt outlandish, the product of a bored former professor who read a little too much Machiavelli last night. Today, the question feels haunting.
Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at an event held at Utah Valley University on Wednesday. Investigations are ongoing, but one can only assume his death was politically motivated given Kirk’s place in national discourse and the messages recently discovered on the shooter’s bullet casings.
Immediate reactions to Kirk’s death varied widely based on political leanings. High-profile politicians from both sides of the aisle responded with shock and grief. President Trump himself even published a four minute video where he lauded Kirk’s willingness to engage in difficult political conversations (while being sure to throw some jabs at Democrats). Democrats, like former President Joe Biden, former Vice President Kamala Harris and Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, all decried the horrific act of violence.
That didn’t stop other prominent left wing commentators from noting Kirk’s ardent defense of gun rights, pointing out the irony of his past statements that “some gun deaths every single year” are necessary to protect the Second Amendment and our “God-given rights.”
Whatever the result of those Twitter feuds are, I can’t help but feel like they miss the most striking aspect of this event. That question I heard last year is being seriously mulled over in the minds of people around the country, and it no longer elicits a chuckle.
Politically motivated violence is becoming an increasingly normalized act in this country. Before Kirk’s death, high-profile political violence had already seen a significant upward trend. President Trump was the target of two separate assassination attempts on his 2024 campaign trail. This year, arsonists lit Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s house ablaze, and a Minnesota House Speaker and state Senator were murdered, all for political reasons.
It’s difficult not to see Kirk’s murder as a frightening new norm.
Even at MSU, that perspective would not be unfounded. The most recent FIRE College Free Speech rankings found that 38% of MSU students agreed that “using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases.”
This new norm of political violence is even more destructive on college campuses, which are supposed to be bastions of free speech. Kirk visited MSU’s campus last year, as part of the same “American Comeback Tour” he was continuing at Utah Valley University. If these senseless acts of violence continue, speech on campus will surely suffer. MSU regularly welcomes high profile political speakers, from Senators, to Governors to Presidential candidates. If this violence continues, and speaking events start to involve risking one’s health, it seems increasingly unlikely they will want to come back.
That aforementioned survey already gave MSU a rating of D- for campus speech climate, citing major issues with MSU’s political tolerance, administrative support, prevalence of selfcensorship and a lack of comfort expressing ideas. Kirk’s death could only make these problems worse.
Perpetrators of political violence commit these acts to put an end to speech they dislike. They see an assassination as a legitimate solution to political issues. In reality, all the violence does is intensify existing political animosity, limit genuine forms of political discourse and encourage more extreme violence. The last thing MSU needs is a further poisoning of its already toxic political climate.
Jack O’Brien is a junior studying Political Theory and Constitutional Democracy and a columnist at The State News. The views in this article are his own and independent of The State News.
Thank you for reading our voices, we want to hear yours.
The State News is now accepting guest commentary and letters to the editor. Guest commentary should be between 600-800 words and contain well-reasoned arguments that inform and engage readers like you. Letters should be fewer than 300 words and provide commentary on issues of interest and stories we’ve covered. We will not publish any anonymous submissions.
For more information, go to our submission portal at statenews.com
Questions? Contact Opinion Desk Coordinator Jack Williams at opinion@statenews.com
